Public Bill Committee

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

Sandra Osborne: Before we begin this morning, I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that—if they are reached—I will, extraordinarily, select new clauses 7 to 9, which are starred on the amendment paper. There was a misunderstanding as to the instruction to table, so they missed the deadline on Thursday. However, they are offered as replacements for amendments 106 to 108 to clause 79, which have seen out their notice period, so I am content that notification to debate the matters that these new clauses raise has been given.

Clause 77  - investigatory powers etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sandra Osborne: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Guidance on new investigatory powers—
‘(1) The Secretary of State will consult on and publish detailed guidance for all Trading Standards Services in relation to the changes to powers under section 77.’.

Stella Creasy: Good morning to the Committee on our final week together talking about consumer rights. I know I shall miss it and I am sure other hon. Members will too, especially the hon. Member for Wycombe. I hope he has enjoyed all our conversations about political philosophy—I know I have. They have been a moment for recollection and remembrance that I am sure he has enjoyed as well. We are now considering elements of the Bill that all of us agree are quite technical, such as schedules 5 and 6 on the role of Trading Standards and the enforcers of the legislation. It is with that in mind that we have tabled new clause 4, which we are taking alongside clause 77. We recognise that clause 77 brings into effect schedules 5 and 6 to the Bill.
Our concern in tabling the new clause is to try and understand the Government’s thinking over how a lot of these new powers will work, given the new consumer landscape. I hope “landscape” is the appropriate word for it, or reorganisation, reformation, moving of the deckchairs. There has been some quite substantial moving of the deckchairs in the consumer protection landscape over the past couple of years. Opposition Members welcome the notion of bringing together and clarifying the powers enforcement agencies will have when enforcing the Bill. We have tabled the new clause to try to understand how those agencies and powers fit together and sit in the new landscape.
I will set out some of those changes and how Opposition Members see them interacting to ensure there is not an enforcement gap at a local or a national level. Trading Standards is the most well known enforcer, but by no means the only enforcer. The new Competition and Markets Authority is another, which I met the other day. The people I met pointed out, with a slight look of fear and awe in their eyes, that they had just 21 working days before they went live. They will take over many of the roles which were previously undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading. Those of us who have dealt with the OFT over the past couple of years will have a number of comments and concerns over the way it operated, but it is being disbanded as part of the new consumer landscape. Various elements of its enforcement powers and responsibilities are being put into different organisations. The organisations will take on slightly different roles. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority will not look at some of the day-to-day stuff that the OFT considered. Those activities will be given to the National Trading Standards Board.
The changes also mean that, as far as we are concerned, some of the other bodies that perhaps have not traditionally been seen as enforcers—although they have enforcement powers—will come into play too, for example the Civil Aviation Authority when it comes to the pricing of tickets and the new Financial Conduct Authority for financial services. Members of the Committee will recall our debates last week about insurance services and mortgages. The FCA will have enforcement powers in those arenas.
This is a new and different consumer landscape, and we recognise the spirit behind the consumer landscape reform that the Government have put forward, which has tried to clarify who was responsible for which particular element of enforcement. Our concern is that—especially in the way in which the consumer landscape has been re-weighted—there is a substantial expectation on Trading Standards to undertake a number of those roles, particularly at a local level. Opposition Members recognise that most of our constituents will face problems locally—the Committee will come to that when we discuss other amendments—so considering how Trading Standards can undertake its operation locally is key in this new consumer landscape. If it is taking on a greater role, yet it has less resource to do that, we must ensure that that does not make the new consumer landscape barren. I hope that analogy works.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose—

Stella Creasy: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian.

Fiona O'Donnell: I should point out that I am the Member for East Lothian, but any part of the Lothians is home to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a radical change to the consumer landscape could have been tested by pilot schemes in certain areas to see whether there would be problems in the roll-out?

Stella Creasy: I am grateful, and I beg to make a humble apology to my hon. Friend for the error. If she wants 30 days to return me as both her colleague and her friend, I will fully understand. I do not feel that I am fit for purpose if I get East Lothian and Midlothian muddled up. I do apologise.
Considering what we have seen over the past couple of years, and in the context of substantial cuts to Trading Standards at local level, my hon. Friend is right to query whether some of the new arrangements make sense. Members of the Committee will be eerily familiar with Opposition concerns about the change in the way estate agents will be managed, and most of our local residents will still go to their local Trading Standards as a first port of call about any such concerns. The Competition and Markets Authority will pick up those concerns on a national level and undertake market studies. It will have a different remit from the OFT, so there is a question of what might happen in between. How many cases and issues might need to be raised at a local level with a Trading Standards that will, frankly, due to the cuts, be trying to run a Rolls-Royce service on a bus pass budget? That is the second analogy this morning that I hope works for the Committee.
How will all this work together? The new clause is intended to get a handle on how those bodies will work together and how some of the changes will interact to affect our constituents. After all, most of us will be concerned about whether Trading Standards can use the powers in schedules 5 and 6, and in the clause that puts those powers in place. I am mindful that we have another debate coming up about some of the particular changes that the Government are making to the powers of enforcers, but if Trading Standards does not have the resources to use those powers, they will become a moot point; residents will not be able to rely on Trading Standards to fulfil those roles. We all recognise that what Trading Standards does is critical to everybody’s everyday experience and quality of life. These enforcement powers are important, given that enforcement is such an issue at the local level.

Stephen Doughty: In particular, I would say to my hon. Friend that the consumer landscape has become more diverse and complex, particularly with online commerce, the advent of eBay and everything else. I have come across a number of cases locally that have involved transactions across the whole of the UK, which Trading Standards had to investigate. It is facing an increasingly complex landscape, so the point she makes is extremely well made.

Stella Creasy: I thank my hon. Friend. His point about online problems is paramount. We welcome the fact the Government are going to give Trading Standards the ability to act on cross-border issues. We all recognise the problem of who is responsible for taking action, especially when it comes to online problems, even if a consumer buys from a UK-based trader. It is unclear whether Trading Standards is responsible for the area in which the consumer who faces detriment lives or for the place where the trading is taking place.
Cross-border cases are increasingly expensive; estimates range from about £30,000 to £200,000 to take one on, which would spend most trading standard offices’ budgets on one particular issue. That inevitably creates a perverse incentive in dealing with some of these problems: who takes cases forward and why? It is welcome that that change is in the Bill. However, we are concerned about the substantial cuts to Trading Standards across the country. The most recent research I could find is from 2012, which, I fear, means that in 2013 the cuts went even further—there were not enough trading standards officers to respond to a follow-up survey. That survey shows that the average budgeted spending on Trading Standards per head of population has fallen by 13% in England alone over the past two years.
We have talked a lot about the importance of having people to take up powers, but we need people in training jobs, training others how to use those powers and in the relevance of particular laws. While some of us may feel that, after a number of weeks in Committee, we might have a stab at being good trading standards officers because we have an improved knowledge of people’s statutory rights—I freely admit that over the past couple of weeks I have been asking friends and family if they have anything that they want to be returned, because I would like to have a go—it is a profession. In due course, we will debate whether we can further professionalise trading standards officers, so that people have every confidence in their role, but if they do not exist at all we will be considering a fundamentally different question.
The new clause would ensure that we had a point of reference for how the changes were bedding in and how they were dealing with perennial problems. I go back to the example of estate agents being a perennial problem. Whether or not we disagree as a Committee about how we might tackle that problem, we all agree that there is growing concern about their behaviour. An important live question is how the new landscape can address that issue—what the new obligations are that different organisations will have and how they will use the powers the clause enacts. This new clause is simply about having a point where we can assess, as a Parliament, whether those changes have been appropriately made and whether there is a particular impact on Trading Standards. If the Minister does not accept our new clause and our argument that there needs to be a review because quite substantial changes have been made to responsibilities and resources, it would be helpful to know where she sees such work taking place. I am sure she would want to know that such a substantial change in the consumer landscape had been reviewed and that there was an evaluation process, so that we could have confidence that there was not an enforcement gap developing at a local level and that Trading Standards could use the powers in a professional manner.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s take on whether trading standards should become a chartered profession. We have chartered accountants, librarians and architects. That is a mark of the professional nature of the job and the fact that those people undertake very detailed roles. That would give consumers some confidence, and the Trading Standards Institute is interested in exploring the idea. The provision would give us another opportunity to review how that had been put into place and how the powers were being taken forward.

Andrew McDonald: My hon. Friend is making a good point. Does she agree that there is an ever-increasing need to professionalise trading standards officers because, through this change in the landscape, we are asking them to have ever-increasing responsibility for and knowledge of a wide range of subjects. The job is very broad and deep—anything else would result in a completely ineffective service, because there would be so many gaps in it.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We ask Trading Standards to act across a wide range of issues that the new consumer landscape will broaden. There are some specific powers, which we will come to in subsequent debates. He has a point about having a solid professional base from which to use those powers and where those powers are applicable, especially given how they are supposed to interact. We will come to some of our concerns about the specifics, but the new clause would provide the opportunity to ensure that we had a certain point of evaluation in the new consumer environment, in which we are asking Trading Standards to take a slightly different role.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Has she, as I have, seen a potentially increased demand for the services of trading standards officers, given the cost of living crisis and the austerity that many people across this country have been facing? The demand for those services is likely to increase, as people will increasingly seek out bargains and, potentially, be pushed into the arms of rogue traders. Consumers are seeking lower prices, so are perhaps going to non-traditional or grey areas of the economy, where people may be seeking to exploit them.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen an increase in concerns. Trading Standards itself reports an increase in concerns where, because people are on tight budgets—indeed, they are finding too much month at the end of their money—they are perhaps striking deals that turn out to not be in their interest at all. On the same point, there has been a reduction in enforcement activity by other agencies.
I was struck yesterday in Home Office questions that the Home Secretary herself was talking about the role of the police in taking up some of the issues that we have discussed in the Committee, in particular Trading Standards and copycat websites. It is clear that resources are stretched by growing consumer detriment. We have both old and new problems arising. We have people being ripped off at a local level by traders exploiting, as my hon. Friend says, a desire to get as much out of money as possible. We also have some new examples of problems arising. In the new consumer landscape there will be a change in how problems are expected to be dealt with. The new clause seeks to ensure that we do not miss that.
I speak as someone who has been frustrated and concerned over the last couple of years, especially with payday lending, as to whose responsibility it is to deal with those issues. A particular issue is, at a local level, the ability to seek Trading Standards’ involvement when we see misleading advertising conducted by an organisation not resident in the local community. We must also consider who is responsible for intervening at national level? I have spent a number of years pleading for the OFT to take part.

Oliver Colvile: May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Osborne? Will the hon. Lady explain, given that we are talking about the whole business of information technology and how we use it, whether the Trading Standards people have actually got the expertise and training to deal with some online issues? I am afraid I am not totally convinced that they do. I do not have particularly good expertise in information technology and how to use it and, if we are going down this route, we need to ensure that they understand what they are dealing with.

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Those are exactly the sorts of issue that one would expect a chartered professional service to develop. He is right to look at the changing landscape in which we are spending our money. As he will remember from our previous sittings, we have debated issues around, for example, digital content, but there is also the information—and misinformation—that we sometimes see online. I hesitate to point out my sadness that, if he shares that concern, he did not support our proposals around misleading advertising and the role of this legislation in protecting consumers from that. However, he is right to ask whether, when it comes to redress, which is what Trading Standards is supposed to be part of, they will have the requisite knowledge. Having met with trading standards officers and dealt with the Trading Standards Institute, I am confident of their commitment to professionalism. I am also cautious about their capacity, given the restrictions on funding that they are facing, to address all of these issues. In this new consumer landscape, where there is a higher bar for some of the other organisations to reach before they would use some of the enforcement powers set out in clause 77, it is certainly right to ask whether Trading Standards is going to be able to pick up the issues that we are asking it to.

Mary Glindon: My hon. Friend makes a case for how Trading Standards can have clarity, but it is even more important in a borough such as mine in North Tyneside. Many of our services have been outsourced to private management, and trading standards is one of those, which has added complications, so the new clause is important.

Stella Creasy: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, not least because she reminds me of an example of where we might see some of those changes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the fact that myself and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian have been concerned about a website called taxreturngateway.com, which I believe is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside. The question of who would take action against that organisation, given that the complaints were being made in different parts of the county, is absolutely apposite considering that after some public debate on and scrutiny of copycat websites the Home Secretary yesterday pledged that she was taking action on the issue. I wondered whether Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might feel aggrieved, because they have told us that it is they who are taking action on the issue. Either way, additional resources have had to be made available to Trading Standards so that it can deal with the issue, because it clearly does not have the resources at a local level to do so.
When Ministers talk about further complications at a local level with how services are delivered, it makes us even more concerned to ensure that we are adequately reviewing how this new consumer landscape works for our constituents, given the powers in the Bill and how they will be amended. I think we are all concerned to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny—especially if private organisations seek to make judgments about whether to use, for example, the powers of entry or the powers to require the production of information—and that it is carried out in the public interest.
I hope therefore that the Minister sets out how she sees the trading standards profession moving forward, given that it feels underfunded, overstretched and overworked. I appreciate that most people in Britain feel that way at the moment, perhaps with some honourable exceptions. Over the last few years, there has however been a real concern in relation to localism that it has been easy to take this approach with Trading Standards, because people have perhaps not been championing its cause. We know that spending more money on Trading Standards means greater savings for the public purse, because it prevents future problems.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of 743 trading standards officers across England, Wales and Scotland over the last two years will further stretch resources and the capacity to deal with the ever-increasing demands on services?

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is right, and we will also lose the expertise that those individuals represent. Given the Bill’s proposed changes to Trading Standards powers, such expertise and experience is even more important because we are dealing with a process of change. Losing people who understand how particular powers can be used, and therefore what particular changes might mean for their role, is a concern for all of us.
I am sure the Minister will claim it is up to local councils and localism to address these concerns. If she therefore does not accept the new clause, we would like to know when she sees such an evaluation process taking place, when we might get a sense of whether Trading Standards has been able to embed these new powers and at what point there might be intervention. As I pointed out, intervention had to come from a national level in relation to copycat websites, with additional funds made available. What might the test be for national intervention to provide such resources, if it is clear there are not resources at a local level to deal with these issues, even if those involved have powers to act across borders? For example, how many complaints would have to be received at a local level? Under this new regime, how many inspections would have to be undertaken before there is recognition that national action needs to be taken? We will discuss how the different powers might fit together in clause 79, but it would be helpful to hear how the Minister sees the relationship between those different enforcers from the other side.
There has been a lot of talk about the problems for local Trading Standards in raising issues with national organisations, but will national organisations be directing local Trading Standards? Will local Trading Standards be able to petition under the new powers? At what point will we see a stronger role, for example, for Ofcom if we have local incidents of people being mis-sold telecoms products? That is something I think we have all seen in our local communities. Will we see a stronger push for the Information Commissioner to take on local cases because Trading Standards lacks resources? What will that mean for the consumer, and what will happen if those organisations say no? Those are all fair questions, especially since the Bill will consolidate those powers and therefore create the expectation that they will be being used.
I hope the Minister will respond positively to these questions. No one is suggesting that change is never a good thing, but we are a little concerned at the number of quite substantial changes, which could counteract each other, to how consumer enforcement takes place. That is especially true in England and Wales, although I appreciate that there are some differences with Scottish courts. That could mean that the primary source of enforcement for most consumers will be the threat of legal action. The whole point of the consumer landscape for all of us, I believe, is to have early and more effective forms of redress, prior to having to seek legal action, and Trading Standards is one of those points of intervention. It would be of substantial concern to us all were the ability of Trading Standards to be such an early point of intervention to be removed. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Jennifer Willott: We are heading towards the home straight, and I am sure that hon. Members will be terribly disappointed that we are entering our last week in Committee, knowing that we will not be together again next Tuesday morning.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to
“consult on and publish detailed guidance for all Trading Standards Services in relation to the”
generic set of powers in schedule 5. The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to broader issues around the funding of Trading Standards, but I would like first to respond to the new clause and then answer the questions asked by hon. Members.
Consumer law investigatory powers are scattered across 60 pieces of consumer legislation, and the powers are overlapping and inconsistent across that legislation. Slight variations in the powers cause confusion and create the potential for disputes with officers, which means that it is difficult for businesses and enforcers to know in every circumstance what are the officer’s powers. We are trying to resolve that.
In the Bill, we are consolidating and simplifying the consumer law investigatory powers in a generic set to resolve some of those issues and to make it easier for businesses and for enforcers to know what the rules say. The generic set is largely based on the powers in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which are already familiar to Trading Standards and other consumer law enforcers because they use those powers daily. However, the Government are also committed to protecting civil liberties and reducing the burdens on businesses, so the Bill adds stronger safeguards to those powers to protect civil liberties in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That is how this aspect has been put together.
The Government have already recognised that a communication and education strategy is important to the success of the Bill, and the Committee has discussed a number of times the importance of consumers, businesses and, in this example, enforcers understanding the rules and being clear about what is needed from them. Therefore, we have drawn together a wide spectrum of consumer, business and enforcer groups to work with us on a co-ordinated approach, which is considering education as well as the content, channels and timing of guidance. We anticipate that any such guidance will take account of other consumer law enforcers, such as the CMA, which will ensure that not only Trading Standards but the broader enforcement body is involved. The new clause refers only to Trading Standards, but the Government’s guidance looks more widely.
The implementation group includes the Trading Standards Institute, and we are working with it, as well as with other stakeholders, to consider what guidance is needed. That is already happening, so there is no need for a specific requirement in statute to provide guidance. It is already in hand.
To move on from the new clause to the broader points that the hon. Lady raised, she mentioned a number of issues around the resources for Trading Standards, training and such things, as well as concerns about the ability of Trading Standards to deliver the new, enhanced consumer enforcement role that the Government envisage for it. That new role is one reason for us putting significant central Government funding— £14 million—into setting up the National Trading Standards Board and getting it running effectively. It has responsibility for prioritising trading standards enforcement across local authority boundaries. For example, the scambuster teams work across local authority boundaries to target the worst rogues, misleading trading practices and fraudulent activity, which might be beyond the capacity of individual local authorities, as a couple of hon. Members said earlier.
The idea is to make much better use of the resources and ensure that those scams that run across local authority boundaries are picked up and tackled. In the past, without that co-ordination, it might have been harder for local authorities to do that work.
As for whether there is a gap in consumer enforcement, the great majority of consumer law enforcement will be done by Trading Standards services, with the new National Trading Standards Board and the extra funding. The board will be responsible for prioritising enforcement nationally, across local authority boundaries, including in respect of scams, illegal money lending and incompetent or rogue traders. The CMA will have primary expertise on unfair contract terms, to allow it to bring enforcement action in areas with market-wide problems. It will also have other consumer enforcement powers, to ensure that consumer choice is not restricted, even where markets are competitive. An issue that has come up a number of times in previous debates is airline payment surcharges as a result of misleading advertising of prices and so on. The CMA will pick up such issues. The consumer landscape is designed to pick up the different levels at which issues arise.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth raised the question of online purchases and the hon. Member for Walthamstow asked whether it was too expensive for Trading Standards to pick up cases such as that. This is one reason why we have the National Trading Standards Board: to ensure that it can co-ordinate national trading standards cases which, by definition, go across boundaries. The CMA also has the role of co-ordinating enforcement activity across the EU, an issue raised by the hon. member for Cardiff South and Penarth. It has a broader remit than just across local authority boundaries, so where there are issues across the EU, that clearly falls within the CMA’s remit.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of funding for trading standards. We recognise that some of the enhanced consumer measures in theBill are new and that it will take time to for them to bed down and for trading standards officers to get accustomed to using them. The Trading Standards Institute is looking into what training officers will need in the new measures. As the hon. Lady said, the provision of local trading standards is ultimately a matter for local authorities. She asked whether such training could be a chartered profession, and as she said, that would be a matter for the Trading Standards Institute to look at. It is partly up to the institute to identify whether it wants to establish a chartered profession. It may need the agreement of the Privy Council to use that term, but it is up to the institute to decide whether it wants to pursue the matter. The Government would not get involved in designing the training; that is clearly a role for the Trading Standards Institute, and one it has performed extremely effectively for a number of years.
When we consulted on the draft Bill, we had evidence from the Local Government Association, which felt strongly that local authorities are best placed to determine the competence of their officers and that it should be left to them to design a trading standards service that suits the local conditions, and to ensure they have officers able to perform the service that is needed. The Government recently published the statutory regulators code, which will be subject to parliamentary approval, to replace the statutory regulators compliance code. It requires regulators, including local authorities, to ensure that their officers have the necessary knowledge and skills to support those they regulate, to enable enforcers to choose proportionate and effective approaches. So there is a code that they have to sign up to and within which they have to operate.
On the numbers of staff that have been lost and whether Trading Standards will be able to support the measures in the Bill and enforce them effectively—the point raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough—we aim to review the measures in the Bill in three to five years to see how they are bedding in and whether Trading Standards is able to make the best use of those powers. We will look at performance, what is happening across the country and the impact the changes are having.
We recognise that pressures on local authority budgets are clearly having an impact on Trading Standards, but we believe that the National Trading Standards Board, which looks at trading standards across the UK, is well placed to ensure that its resources are being directed towards areas of greatest threat to consumers, and to make sure that it is picking up on issues of concern.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked whether local Trading Standards will be able to go the National Trading Standards Board about local issues or to Ofgem or other nationwide organisations. The National Trading Standards Board includes representatives from local Trading Standards teams, so they have that representation already on the NTSB. One of the reasons for creating the National Trading Standards Board was to give Trading Standards a stronger voice. Having a nationwide voice that can act on its behalf makes it easier to raise issues with the sector regulators. The issues being raised locally with Trading Standards can be fed into the National Trading Standards Board, which, if necessary, can raise them with regulators that also have a nationwide remit. The idea is that Trading Standards will have a stronger voice in that regard. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to make sure that such actions are co-ordinated.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised the issue of the training necessary for trading standards officers to be able to investigate online trading. Part of the money that the Government are providing to the National Trading Standards Board includes funding to support an e-crime unit. The OFT currently runs an internet lab, which will be transferring over to the CMA, to investigate online crime. There is resourcing, support and expertise in those teams.

Oliver Colvile: May I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement, which is very good news.

Jennifer Willott: I am glad my hon. Friend is pleased; that is excellent news first thing in the morning.
The hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Middlesbrough asked about reviewing progress in this area. There will be a formal review three to five years after implementation, but BIS will also annually monitor the performance of the new system through the grant allocation process. There will be ongoing monitoring to make sure that things are working in the right way, through that grant-making process.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked what will be done to ensure that we do not have gaps in enforcement if Trading Standards does not have the resources to carry out its functions. Currently, the NTSB and the OFT work together as part of the Consumer Protection Partnership and the joint task group to agree how to tackle major threats to consumers, and that will continue. The CPP is an effective way of identifying the issues and problems that are of most concern to consumers. It makes sure that enforcement activities are co-ordinated effectively, and that co-ordinated action is taken on the issues that are most likely to cause problems and where such action is most needed. That will continue with the new regime.
I hope that has answered all the questions that were raised, and that I have reassured the hon. Member for Walthamstow that guidance will be produced as part of the implementation group’s work and that such a requirement need not therefore be included in the Bill. I hope she will therefore not press the new clause to a vote.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is helpful to know that guidance will be produced. It would also be helpful to know whether the guidance will cover a number of the issues that we were trying to raise with her concerning how Trading Standards will operate in this new consumer landscape. We are asking it to take on a broader role, given the money that will be taken from the Office of Fair Trading budget. The OFT is being abolished and so no new money is being made available; money is being transferred over.
The Minister talked about the scambusters teams—[Interruption.] She pulls a face, but the National Trading Standards Board budget sets out clearly how money is being transferred from the OFT to its reserves. Given that the OFT is being abolished, one would expect the money to go somewhere, but we have to see that resources are being used in a prudent fashion. To where might the funding go at the local and national level? At what point will trading standards officers be given guidance about referring issues on? What they see in their local community might be taking place in other areas.
The Minister talked about using enhanced consumer measures, about guidance on what is a major threat, and about the Consumer Protection Partnership looking at the major threats to consumers. How is a major threat defined? What guidance might be given to Trading Standards? If my trading standards officers in Walthamstow were looking at double charging, would they be told that they should consult their National Trading Standards Board colleagues about whether double charging was taking place in other areas of the country and that the matter should therefore be referred on for a market-wide study? The CMA has a specific vision of market-wide studies and what the test for a national review might be. It would be helpful to know what guidance will be given to trading standards officers about the point at which they should refer on.
It is welcome that the Minister says that Trading Standards will be able to refer things up. She is right to look at the escalation process. It would be helpful to know whether Trading Standards referred up copycat websites, because we have all had casework on that and have tried to refer it on. Given that the landscape is already in place, it would be useful to know whether that happened. We would all like to make the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport happy and see him content in life. Can we have confidence in the new landscape, and be confident that guidance will be given to trading standards officers about the filtering process? What is happening at a local level, and what might be escalating across the country? None of us wants a system whereby the detriment has to be severe and seen in many different areas before the matter gets referred. That is the sort of guidance we were looking for. At what level will trading standards officers be told that it is not an issue they should deal with individually, but that they should refer it on to the scambusters teams?
The Minister said that the impact of the Bill will be reviewed in three to five years, which is welcome. Given that our Trading Standards officer corps has already been decimated, what will be left to take this forward and how will that impact on Trading Standards’ ability to use these powers? Has the Minister’s Department made any assessment of the current capacity of Trading Standards and the loss in officers we might see during that three to five-year process? If she expects Trading Standards to take on such guidance, but it no longer exists in some areas or exists on a shoestring basis, can these provisions actually be put into practice?
Will the guidance that the Minister expects our pregnant panda of an implementation group to draw up cover escalation and co-ordination? For many of us, increasingly, that is where the pressure on finances will come. There is also the question of the point at which money was provided for national-level work on copycat websites under the current proposal. That seems like quite a good model to use to test the new landscape. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is working through her notes to find the answers to those questions. It would be incredibly helpful to understand exactly what the guidance will cover.

Jennifer Willott: On the issue of guidance to trading standards about the different parts of its work, we are looking to provide guidance on both the enhanced consumer measures and how to use them, and the investigatory powers. That will be separate from the operational guidance, so a range of different information will be available to trading standards. As for how intelligence is gathered from trading standards to identify nationwide issues, there is a national tasking group. This is where trading standards officers share information on so-called level 3 cases, which are of national importance, and identify them. Trading standards officers are also represented on the board of the National Trading Standards Board, which pulls together the intelligence which comes from across the country. They feed into that automatically, because they are part of the board which operates with the NTSB.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of local authorities not providing a trading standards service. As I mentioned earlier, there is a regulators code, which will be subject to parliamentary approval. However, that requires regulators, including local authorities, to ensure that their officers have the knowledge and skill to ensure enforcement. The responsibility to provide a trading standards service will still sit with local authorities. They will have a responsibility to provide it.
Let me turn to forecasting trading standards numbers. BIS is liaising closely with the Trading Standards Institute, which is reviewing trading standards numbers across the country. We do not have a forecast of specific numbers, but as I said, we believe strongly that the Trading Standards Institute is an extremely important part of the process. By committing significant amounts of money to the National Trading Standards Board, we are demonstrating the Government’s commitment to the profession and the fact that we think that trading standards has an important role to play. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s queries.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister. On that point, it sounds as though she is suggesting that the National Trading Standards Board might actually fund trading standards officers in local areas should there be pressure on them. The Minister has just said that she is committed to providing trading standards officers. I wonder whether she would clarify that, because I am sure that many local authorities would be very interested to know whether there will be funding at a national level to ensure that a local trading standards service is provided.

Jennifer Willott: No, I did not say that; I said that the Government are showing their commitment to the importance of trading standards work by funding the National Trading Standards Board, which has a separate role from that of trading standards officers at a local authority level. However, we are trying to ensure that trading standards services can make the most efficient use of their resources by co-ordinating the work done across local authority boundaries much better. We need to ensure that we can identify the areas where the local level is not the most effective place to take enforcement action. Issues such as the scambusters team or some of the online crime that the hon. Lady has raised have a nationwide footprint. We need to ensure that this work is better co-ordinated and that trading standards’ resources are used in the most effective way possible.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for her answer; however, I think the question that many of us would like answered is whether we will have a local trading standards person to whom we can report issues. For example, to whom would we report issues about estate agents or copycat websites? What the Minister said does rather suggest that she expects that under the new system there might be some sort of national provision or national organisation, but to whom would we report?

Jennifer Willott: To trading standards.

Stella Creasy: To whom would we report if trading standards is cut back at a local level to such an extent?
 Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab) rose—

Stella Creasy: I see that my hon. Friend is seeking to intervene. She has extensive experience in this area, and I wonder whether she has a scenario that she would like to put to the Minister.

Sheila Gilmore: I do indeed have an example, from a constituent who contacted me recently. He sought advice from trading standards, but was told that they do not deal with “the public” and that he should phone the Citizens Advice Bureau helpline. However, the person answering the helpline did not give a very satisfactory answer—probably through no fault of their own, but because of a lack of training. He felt let down by the system over what was perhaps a relatively complex problem for CAB volunteers to deal with.

Stella Creasy: I thank my hon. Friend for telling us about that experience. As I have said, if we get this piece of legislation right, two thirds of our casework will disappear; if we get it wrong, clearly it could increase by two thirds, as increasing numbers of people will come to us because they cannot get an answer at local level.
It is a simple concern: the Minister says there is a statutory duty to provide trading standards through the regulators code; we are concerned about the people on the ground to put that into practice. The Minister is making great play of the national commitment to trading standards and the fact that funding is being made available for services. Given that we are talking about the guidance that might be provided to trading standards officers, it would be helpful if she clarified what she intends to do if there is not a local trading standards person—there might be one only for a region under the system she is talking about. Local authorities might say that they would contribute to a regional base. Indeed, some hon. Members might be interested in pooling trading standards services, but then there will always be a tension about the capacity to deal with very localised issues.
We will debate later how to deal with the very localised example of consumer detriment—the people who often appear on our doorsteps complaining about the same traders—as well as how to deal with regional scams. I will go back to what I know to provide an example. There are illegal loan sharks who are very localised individuals, and companies, such as one called Cash Direct, based in Romford, Essex, that is posting leaflets that do not indicate the interest rates through doors in Walthamstow. Those examples require enforcement action, but who might provide it at those different levels if the officers do not exist?
The Minister says it is a local authority decision to fund initiatives, but there is a national pot of money. Who might pick up the slack? All our constituents want to know who is getting the guidance and where they might information and advice. They want to avoid the trap, identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East, of having to call a helpline that is not particularly helpful in knowing where to start.

Jennifer Willott: Consumers should contact citizens advice bureaux—the main point of contact for consumers—which will be able to direct cases to the most effective enforcement body. That is a much simpler process for consumers to know that they can contact them, and they will ensure that the matter is directed to the right place.
I would like to make it clear that we have seen no evidence of councils getting rid of trading standards officers altogether. They often find more efficient ways to use their resources and co-ordinate more effectively across council boundaries. With regard to the matter just raised by the hon. Lady, about someone advertising in her constituency while based in Romford, it makes a lot of sense on such issues for trading standards to co-ordinate more effectively across boundaries. That is a much more efficient use of their resources.

Stella Creasy: The Minister has indicated the future of trading standards as being not based in local areas, but probably a regional service. We hope citizens advice bureaux will still exist, because we have also seen cuts to the advice landscape at a local level. We hope there will be somebody to pick up the phone to direct the call.

Stephen Doughty: To Powys.

Stella Creasy: To Powys—if it is about an estate agent—where we hope they will understand the nature of the property market in London.
I am happy not to press the new clause to a vote, because it would be helpful to move on to other debates about how the powers will operate. However, from what the Minister has said, hon. Members will be mindful that we will be looking at a skeleton service trying to cover the whole country and hoping it will be able to pick up increasingly complex issues. I am not sure that will make the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport happy. He might find Plymouth trading standards being technically based in Stafford as part of a regional collaboration to be a step too far. I am sure he would be concerned about whether they were really able to exercise the powers in the legislation. The production of guidance on the powers is welcome; however, we are concerned that there might not be the people to put them in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5  - Investigatory powers etc.

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 76,in schedule 5, page65,line13, after ‘under’, insert ‘—(a)’.

This amendment and amendments 77 to 86 reflect the fact that enforcement action is sometimes taken under legislation under which the enforcer’s legislation is made, not under the enforcer’s legislation itself. For example, a breach of safety regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is an offence under that Act not the regulations.

Sandra Osborne: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 77 to 86.

Jennifer Willott: Amendments 76 to 86 concern the investigatory powers in schedule 5. They are minor, technical amendments that are necessary to address technical issues in the existing drafting of the schedule. They clarify provisions relating to a breach of the enforcers legislation and offences under that legislation. This reflects the fact that certain enforcement actions, such as enforcement notices and proceedings, may not necessarily be brought under the enforcers legislation. Such actions may instead be brought under the legislation under which the enforcers legislation was made. For example, a number of safety regulations—the enforcers legislation—were made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. A breach of the safety regulations is not, therefore, an offence under the regulations—and under the enforcers legislation—but is instead an offence under the 1987 Act.

Stella Creasy: I rise only to commend the Minister on trying to find a way through the convoluted nature of the regulations. I think we understand the distinction that she is trying to make, and we have no concerns about it.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Amendments made: 77,in schedule 5, page65,line14 at end insert ‘, or
(b) legislation under which the enforcer’s legislation is made.’.
78,in schedule 5, page84,line9 leave out ‘under that legislation’ and insert ‘by the enforcer’.
79,in schedule 5, page84,line10 leave out ‘under the enforcer’s legislation’ and insert ‘by the enforcer’.
80,in schedule 5, page87,line7, after ‘enforce’, insert—
‘(ca) legislation under which legislation mentioned in paragraph (c) is made,’.
81,in schedule 5, page87,line36 at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
82,in schedule 5, page87,line42 after ‘(a)’, insert ‘, (aa)’.
83,in schedule 5, page88,line7 at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
84,in schedule 5, page88,line9 after ‘(a)’, insert ‘ or (aa)’.
85,in schedule 5, page88,line17 at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
86,in schedule 5, page88,line19 after ‘(a)’, insert ‘ or (aa)’.—(Jenny Willott.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 76 also applies to these amendments.

Stella Creasy: I beg to move amendment 104,in schedule 5, page74,line37, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).’.
We have debated whether trading standards will remain to guide people in the new consumer landscape; this amendment refers to one of the powers that trading standards would have if it remains in existence. I was struck by the fact that the Minister proudly proclaimed that the changes were being made to protect civil liberties, including through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but we have a concern. Paragraph 23 of schedule 5 grants enforcers the powers to enter premises. The Government have severely restricted the way in which that power, which has been used by trading standards for many years, can operate. It requires that trading standards give 48 hours’ notice before entering premises to conduct an inspection. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian makes a quizzical face. Yes, that is one of the suggestions that the Government have made.
By scrutinising the Bill, we can see some clarity. We can see the alternative civil liberties argument that says that the reason we have trading standards is so that we may all live free from the fear of buying products that may be bad for us. Enabling a trader to have notice that an inspection might take place—and therefore to remove the goods that might be causing a restriction on our liberty—is the counter-argument from a civil liberties approach. It is no good saying that it is in our own interest and in the interest of our freedom—perhaps the hon. Member for Wycombe might want to look up Locke at this point, because I am sure Locke talked about this—if the behaviour of others curtails our freedom by default. Traders who mis-sell goods and seek to sell counterfeit goods undermine our own freedoms by undermining the social contract.

Sheila Gilmore: In many other inspection regimes, one of the first things that gets said is that we should not do pre-arranged or pre-announced inspections. That has been the case, for example, with hospital and care home inspections. When there is a problem, the first thing that people call for is unannounced inspections, so it seems odd to be moving slightly in the other direction.

Stella Creasy: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government stated that the change is necessary because they have a number of concerns. On the one hand, they say that to allow trading standards suddenly to turn up unannounced would place a burden on business; on the other, they suggest that giving notice helps trading standards because it allows businesses to get the relevant information ready.

Andrew McDonald: Is this not a bit like Dr Doolittle’s pushmi-pullyu creature? Paragraph 23(4)(c) states that two working days’ notice must be given, but sub-paragraph (5)(c) states:
“A notice need not be given if…the officer reasonably considers that to give notice in accordance with this paragraph would defeat the purpose of the entry”.
Does not notice, by its nature, defeat the purpose of the entry? Giving somebody two days to get their act together—to clear up the rat faeces from the food establishment or to disappear the evidence—defeats the purpose.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is right. We all recognise the difference between a trading standards officer who contacts a business to say, “It would be helpful to have X or Y piece of information,” and one who contacts a business because of a concern that a breach of legislation is taking place on its premises and who does not want the effectiveness of the investigation or their ability to gather evidence to be undermined.
My hon. Friend said that the Bill might create confusion in seeking to repeal this pronouncement. It states that notice need not be given if the officer considers that it would defeat the purpose of a visit. The question arises: how will they know? Surely someone undertaking an investigation seeks to investigate, not to confirm. How will they know whether they have just cause until they get there?
We recognise that the Government have moved somewhat on this issue since trading standards said that they were concerned about the convoluted nature of the proposal. However, the convolution has not been adequately resolved. We tabled the amendment because we are not convinced that the schedule as drafted, even with the exemptions, will adequately encourage trading standards to have a relationship with businesses. It makes sense to ensure that somebody—for example, the owner of the business—is on the premises when trading standards seek to gather information, but that is different from when trading standards investigate a business because they are concerned that illegal activities are taking place.
The Government have included some exemptions. For example,
“notice need not be given if…the occupier has waived the requirement to give notice”.
I am sure that some businesses do that, but they are unlikely to be those that the officers want to inspect. There is an exemption if an officer suspects that a breach of the law has taken place, but why should we have that precondition? Equally, we do not want officers to conduct unnecessary inspections. As we have already said, we are talking about a skeleton service that probably does not have a lot of time. We want officers to inspect only if it is important that they do so. There is an exemption if it is not possible to issue a notice. Again, whether it is possible to issue a notice is open to interpretation.
Finally, there is an exemption if the enforcer has special surveillance powers. We know that they have substantial surveillance powers. The proposal fits in with concerns about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which the Minister probed when she talked about the Protection of Freedoms Act. However, rather than meshing together, the provisions seem to conflict with each other. Trading standards said that they are concerned that the drafting of the schedule will confuse, rather than clarify what powers trading standards officers have.

Andrew McDonald: It does not merely confuse. It may damage satellite litigation—for example, a trader may want to claim that a trading standards officer has not reasonably considered that to give notice would defeat the purpose. That creates the environment in which these matters can be tested, rather than doing the right thing, which is to leave the power with the trading standards officer on behalf of the consumer.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend, who has substantial experience of litigation, knows that as soon as the possibility of confusion is created, the possibility of a defence and the possibility of pressure are also created, which may not be in the interest of consumers and their freedoms. As I said, we see it as an issue of protection of freedom and civil liberties to ensure that people do not live in an environment where there are unsafe goods, because that undermines their freedom. That is why Trading Standards has said that it feels that
“the overall requirement to serve notice is counter intuitive and that deciding how a trading standards service should engage with business on ‘routine’ matters should be a matter for local authority not for statute.”
We have heard a lot in the Committee about how Opposition amendments and proposals for scrutiny will burden business. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Braintree is not here at the moment; if he were, I am sure he would pop up now and robustly state that red tape and bureaucracy run counter to freedom and efficiency. This is a test. If we specify to such a degree the circumstances in which a trading standards officer may enter a premises, we create a burden and bind with council red tape an individual acting on behalf of consumers.
Let me give the Committee examples of where and how the legislation as it stands would come into play in those circumstances. Trading standards inspections find counterfeit goods, seek illegal activity or deal with issues such as rat faeces, which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough mentioned. I am ashamed to say that a number of fast food outlets in Walthamstow have been investigated recently and found to be horror shops, as far as I am concerned. I would be concerned if local residents were buying food from them, because the lack of cleanliness and the way they have stored goods in the buildings is a breach of consumer law. One would expect trading standards officers to be able to turn up unannounced to ensure that those properties were not in such a condition; or, if they were in such a condition and enforcement action was taken, one would expect trading standards officers to be able to return unannounced to ensure that standards were maintained, so that the public could have confidence in buying food from those properties, which were previously shut down.
There is concern that the Bill will restrict such inspections to only those properties for which there is prior suspicion of a problem. There will have to have been a report and a previous inspection for officers to maintain supervision of the premises. A trader would clearly not have acted in the interests of the public by letting their premises get into that state. Trading standards departments are concerned that they will have to have prior intelligence of a nature that meets the tests my hon. Friend talked about. If there was a threat of litigation from the trader, trading standards officers would have to have had a prior report; they would not be able to exercise their own judgment about the appropriate course of conduct.
When trading standards officers become aware of counterfeit tobacco, for example, being sold in a local community, but are not sure about which individual businesses are responsible for the sale, how will they investigate? If they have to give 48 hours’ notice to conduct a premises search to find counterfeit tobacco, I imagine that there would not many cigarettes left by the time the search took place. This defeat-the-purpose clause will undermine officers’ ability to investigate.
Legal practitioners from whom the Trading Standards Institute has sought counsel suggest that although the burden of proof of the test is quite low, there would need to be an actual link in the suspicion between a particular premises and the activity about which the officers are concerned. That could undermine their ability to investigate and follow leads. There could be difficulties if they had no evidence of previous non-compliance. If a trader trading in counterfeit goods finds a colleague with a business that has not been searched, will officers be hampered in searching that property if they are concerned that it is involved in illegal trade?

Andrew McDonald: On the issue of “reasonably considers”, is my hon. Friend aware—I am not—of any evidence of local authority trading standards officers exercising powers of entry for inspection and search unreasonably? It is in the interest of local authorities that businesses thrive; we want the good, clean, fair businesses to be successful. I am not aware of any abuse, but does she agree that if any were to occur, plenty of other legal remedies are available to a trader who feels unfairly or prejudicially targeted for inspections? Such a person or company would be able to make a complaint of maladministration against the council.

Stella Creasy: Again, my hon. Friend, with his expertise in litigation, is right: other remedies are available. I am reminded of a concern that has been raised throughout the progress of the Bill through Parliament: that although the Bill is supposed to be a piece of consumer rights legislation, the Government have based it firmly on what the trader would consider a consumer’s rights to be, which is not necessarily the standard that consumers might expect.

Mary Glindon: On that specific point, as I read and re-read the schedule, I am thinking from the point of view of a local person who reports their concerns only to be told, “We cannot do anything for a couple of days.” Consumers will be frustrated and their confidence dented.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is right, and her point echoes the debate on clause 77 about what guidance will be given to trading standards departments. I am sure the Minister will argue that the Bill contains exemptions, but Trading Standards is telling us that it is confused as to how that might operate—how one could use the defence that one had a reasonable belief that the notice would undermine the purpose of a visit. That is why Trading Standards says:
“In effect this is likely to kill the routine inspection which while in decline in any case”—
because of reduced resources that trading standards departments have—
“is essential for building up the very intelligence base we need to develop our strategy on.”
Take a real-life example based on what my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside said. If a concerned consumer reported that a local newsagent was selling counterfeit tobacco, and trading standards had not previously had intelligence that that newsagent might be involved in such sales, 48 hours’ notice would have to be given of an inspection to see whether the tobacco was counterfeit. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend laughs, because it is fairly obvious what any trader with at least two brain cells would do to ensure that they continued to stay off the radar. Trading standards’ role and ability to investigate would clearly be undermined. Indeed, having received such a report, were trading standards officers to turn up at a newsagent on spec in order to see for themselves, would that be considered evidence gathering? Would they therefore be at risk that a trader could challenge them through litigation, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough?
We think it would be simpler to remove the provision entirely from the Bill. We are also concerned that it might conflict with other enforcement powers. For example, the Food Standards Agency has investigatory powers relating to food labelling. Everyone will remember the concerns that followed the horsemeat scandal; how would existing powers conflict with the proposals in the schedule?
If the Minister will not accept our suggestion that the schedule contains a clarifying measure too far, will she explain how we can be confident that the provision will not mean that trading standards departments will be acting with one hand tied behind their back? What operational guidance will she give to trading standards? After all, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee also felt that the provisions in the schedule were not an appropriate addition to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on how sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) conflict with other legislation, the resultant confusion that might arise, and how she will resolve that.

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Lady said, amendment 104 would remove entirely from the Bill the requirement for enforcers to give notice of routine inspections. I would like to clarify that we are discussing enforcers giving notice of routine inspections only.
A number of hon. Members have raised concerns. For example, the hon. Member for North Tyneside raised the situation in which a member of the public reported concerns to trading standards, so that officers had intelligence of a potential breach of the law. In those circumstances, they would not have to give two days’ notice and would not have to keep people waiting around—it would amount to one of the exemptions. If the report gave rise to reasonable suspicion of a breach, they would not have to give two days’ notice. It would obviously depend on the circumstances and the information provided, but we are not saying that they have to give two days’ notice under any circumstances.
Businesses have told us that unannounced inspections are burdensome, particularly for small businesses. Opposition Members have raised a number of concerns during the passage of the Bill about the implications for small and micro-businesses, which are often those that have issues with unannounced visits—for example, if an owner is away from a premises when the officer visits.

Andrew McDonald: I am against the idea that businesses find this legislation burdensome. The whole point is to be a burden and to say, “We are inspecting”. They may find it a bit inconvenient, but that is the whole point. Such events do not happen every day; they are very infrequent and the whole purpose is to find evidence, which will disappear if you give notice. It is common sense.

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Gentleman is totally misinterpreting what I am saying. The issue for many small businesses is that the right person is very often not there. The owner of a small or micro-business will often be away doing something else and the members of staff do not have access to the right paperwork, do not know where the information is and cannot answer the questions, so the process is a bit of a waste of time for the staff and the trading standards officer. Routine inspections ensure that the right staff are present to answer the officers’ questions and that the paperwork is ready. Where that is possible, it can often save the trading standards officer a second visit to get the answers he would otherwise be unable to get the first time.

Stephen Doughty: I am struggling with the Minister’s logic; that they can come back and make a second visit is exactly the point. Surely, we want to investigate matters thoroughly. Whether or not the trading standards officer has to come back a second time, they can do an initial investigation and if a staff member who has information is not there, they can demand that they come back and that information be provided. I do not understand the logic.

Jennifer Willott: Clearly, it is much easier for trading standards officers to have to visit a business only once. Obviously, it is possible to come back multiple times, but we are talking about routine inspections, not situations where there is a suspicion that the law has been breached. In an earlier debate Opposition Members raised concerns about the resources available for Trading Standards. This is a way to ensure that Trading Standards can make much better use of its resources and more efficient use of its time—by not having to make multiple visits for routine inspections.

Fiona O'Donnell: Can the Minister give an example of another regulatory framework that does not make use of unannounced inspections?

Jennifer Willott: Trading standards officers will still have the power to make unannounced inspections in a wide range of circumstances. We are talking about routine inspections. Even with these measures in place and the need to give two days’ notice, Trading Standards will have fewer constraints on entering commercial premises than the police have, for example. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the police are not investigating equally serious crimes. We are talking about giving notice for routine inspections. Trading Standards has a wide range of powers under which it can enter premises without notice if it has concerns about breaches in the law.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Minister misses the point that those routine inspections are often when problems are uncovered. If notice is given it will really weaken their effectiveness.

Jennifer Willott: Trading standards officers are very good at knowing the communities in which they work, knowing where there are likely to be concerns, picking up intelligence and identifying businesses where there may well be issues. We should not underestimate their ability to operate in their local communities and to know very well what is going on. To judge by my experience in my area—I am sure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has had the same experience—they are extremely well informed about the businesses in their local community and they know which are more likely, and which are less likely, to have issues. They are extremely well plugged into their local communities.
We are talking about routine inspections, not inspections that take place when there are issues that may give rise to concern. The ability to give notice would improve the efficiency of enforcers; they would not waste their time and businesses’ time. The efficiency of enforcers would also be improved if safeguards were added to the use of some of the powers. Consolidating and simplifying investigatory powers and adding safeguards to the use of such powers will generate savings; we estimate that the net savings over 10 years will be £45 million to businesses and £2 million to enforcers, which are not insignificant sums of money. I can assure you, Mrs Osborne, that I do not intend to weaken the enforcement powers to tackle rogue traders.
In a previous debate, the Government agreed that it was absolutely vital that enforcers such as trading standards officers be able to investigate rogue trading and to take effective, efficient action to tackle those rogue traders.

Andrew McDonald: I am genuinely asking for clarification. The Minister is suggesting that what we are talking about here are routine inspections, as opposed to unannounced ones. I am struggling to see how that plays out. While she is having a think about that, may I give her an example, in answer to the question posed earlier, of an Ofsted inspector turning up at a school for an unannounced visit? He was told, “I’m sorry; the head’s not here. We can’t find the safeguarding papers. We haven’t got anybody qualified who can deal with it.” That is simply not acceptable. I think what the Minister is saying is that the circumstances that we are discussing are completely at odds with every other area of life in this modern day.

Jennifer Willott: It is unreasonable to compare a school with many staff, whom one would expect to be on the premises most of the time, to a small or a micro-business where, very often, the staff are out of the office doing jobs. It is unreasonable to compare the two.
On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised, about the type of inspection, the Bill provides a number of exemptions, which hon. Members have highlighted and which I will explain in more detail, which allow inspections to be made without notice. One of the exemptions to giving notice—I think the hon. Gentleman highlighted this—is
“where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the entry”.
That is likely to apply in situations where the retailer may conceal items that breach the law, which was the point raised by the hon. Members for North Tyneside and for Middlesbrough. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, the Bill was scrutinised by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and on this point I have accepted in full its recommendation to amend that exemption to make it clearer what the intention is. We have taken on board, following the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Committee’s recommendation in this area.
A trading standards officer who receives information that a travelling salesman is selling counterfeit vodka or cigarettes will know from experience that those items are regularly concealed during a routine visit, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough highlighted. If the information that he has is that the salesman is selling the product to small independent retailers in the local area, the officer may not know exactly which retailers are selling the vodka or the cigarettes, but that does not matter. The officer will be able to use that local knowledge to help focus enforcement activity on the retailers in the locality that are likely to be selling that product. He need not know exactly which shop it is; he can do an unannounced inspection in the different shops that are likely to be selling it, so that he can identify which ones are in breach of the law. So the exemption
“where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the entry”
enables the officer to carry out unannounced spot checks at those premises to find out whether the vodka or the cigarettes are being sold, and if so, to remove them from sale. One or more of the other exemptions from giving notice might also apply in such situations.
A number of hon. Members mentioned issues regarding the carrying out of food safety inspections. The powers in schedule 5 do not cover food safety legislation, and the Bill does not cover or affect inspections. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked whether the provisions would conflict with the powers of the Food Standards Agency, and how the investigatory powers under the Bill would work with the FSA’s. If Trading Standards investigates a food premises, no notice need be given, and the FSA’s powers are separate from that. I hope that that clarifies her point.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, with his legal background, raised concerns about the threat of litigation. Enforcers must already comply with the correct investigatory practices and procedures to ensure the integrity of their investigations. They are already used to operating within the framework, in the same way that other enforcers have to comply with processes to ensure that they are able to secure successful outcomes for their cases.
The Bill includes a range of other powers that enforcers may use without giving notice, which can be effective in combating rogue traders. They include the ability to enter commercial premises to which the public normally have access to carry out test purchases or to observe the carrying on of business.
A point was raised earlier about how a trading standards officer would know whether they had just cause until they got there. Officers may use a number of sources of intelligence to help focus their enforcement activity and determine whether entry is required. For example, they may gather intelligence under the other powers in schedule 5, for example the power to observe the carrying on of business or to carry out a test purchase. From that, they will be able to identify whether any activity is going on that would allow one of the exemptions to kick in, and they will be able to conduct an unannounced inspection.
Far from inhibiting enforcers’ ability to investigate wrongdoing, the Bill supports an intelligence-led approach to enforcement to tackle rogue activities effectively. The measures will not only ensure consistency of powers of enforcement bodies in different circumstances but reflect what happens in practice. Trading standards officers have told us that they already give notice in between 12% and 19% of their inspections, so they are already used to doing that. I am sure we would all agree that targeting finite enforcement resources using that approach is a more efficient strategy.

Andrew McDonald: The Minister just said that trading standards officers are giving notice already. Why on earth, then, are we here debating a provision that would tie their hands? How on earth will that be policed? Would we say to local authorities, “Produce your record. Let us see how many times you went in unannounced and how many you went in with notice”? We are getting ourselves absolutely entangled here, completely unnecessarily.

Jennifer Willott: Trading standards officers in a range of local authority areas already give notice. They have already identified that to be a more effective way of working with compliant businesses—give notice, get the right people there, and get a more effective outcome from the inspection as a result. We are trying to ensure that businesses, when they comply with the law, are able to rely on that, so that they know that it is a more efficient use of their time. It reduces the burden on businesses, and it makes a much more efficient use of the time of trading standards officers.
We are trying to strike a careful balance between ensuring that officers can take effective action when necessary, when they have concerns that the law has been breached, and ensuring that compliant businesses, about which trading standards officers have no concerns, are able to maintain a positive relationship with those officers, allowing both parties to make the most efficient use of their time.
Even with the notice requirement, consumer law enforcers will still have more powers to enter premises than the police. We are not talking about taking away significant powers from trading standards officers. The Government consider that the Bill’s approach strikes the right balance between protecting civil liberties and compliant businesses and enabling enforcers to tackle rogue traders. With that, I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ queries.

Stella Creasy: The case that the Minister has just made shows exactly why the Opposition are not satisfied that the exemption process in the Bill is clear. In fact, it seems further convoluted. The Minister talked about routine inspections, but then set out a number of powers that trading standards officers will also have to continue to inspect. Trading standards officers themselves say that they do not want this confusion in the Bill or to leave open this loophole which means that they could be open to challenge.
The Minister also raises the prospect of food safety officers, for example, doing an inspection without notice. If they inspect a newsagent’s premises because they think he is not storing ice lollies properly and find counterfeit cigarettes, can they seize them when they did not have previous intelligence about it? The Minister says that trading standards officers already give notice in situations where they want to speak to a particular person, such as the owner of a business. It seems that she wants to give maximum flexibility to traders, but to tie the hands of trading standards officers. I trust trading standards officers. We do not need to specify to such an extent how they do their job. Surely, at the very most, that could be an issue for guidance and for the wonderful implementation group to take on, rather than putting it into statute.
The Minister says that trading standards officers know well what is going on in their area. Our concern is that under the changes the Government are making, there will not even be a locally based trading standards officer to have the sensitivity that she suggests. We do not think there is a clear divide between the purposes of routine inspections and unannounced inspections, so we are not satisfied that those elements of the Bill should remain. Accordingly, we would like to test the Committee’s opinion and push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 78, in schedule 5, page84,line9, leave out ‘under that legislation’ and insert ‘by the enforcer’.
79, in schedule 5, page84,line10, leave out ‘under the enforcer’s legislation’ and insert ‘by the enforcer’.
80, in schedule 5, page87,line7, after ‘enforce’, insert—
‘(ca) legislation under which legislation mentioned in paragraph (c) is made,’.—(Jenny Willott.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 76 also applies to these amendments.

Stella Creasy: I beg to move amendment 103, in schedule 5, page87,line28, at end insert—
‘(45A) The Secretary of State shall within three months of Royal Assent of this Act produce a report on the effect of an area enforcer, in order to protect consumers, to—
(a) issue enforcement orders, as set out in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002, for traders who persistently cause detriment within a local area; and;
(b) enable the disclosure to consumers and other interested parties without legal liability of complaints they have received regarding traders when—
(i) a consumer has consented to their contact details and the nature of their complaint being shared with others who wish to raise concerns about a trader; and
(ii) the area enforcer considers the behaviour of the trader to have breached consumer protection regulations and it is in the public interest for their conduct to be known.’.
We have tabled this amendment to help the Government. I know they might not believe me, but we genuinely seek to be helpful. We recognise that in the consumer landscape we have been discussing this morning, there is the potential for gaps to arise at a local level in trading standards provision. Yet, as we have already discussed, most consumers experience detriment at a local level, with the traders that they encounter in their local communities. Many of us will have dealt with several consumers who have had problems with the same trader, so we may become aware of a trader in a local area who is behaving in a way that is of concern.
According to its last year’s figures, the Citizens Advice consumer service dealt with 837,000 unique issues with goods and services. Faulty goods accounted for 250,000 complaints, which added up to about £225 million of mis-spent money. However, Which? found that 40% of complaints about services were not resolved. Consumers are complaining in ever greater numbers, especially at local level, about an ever greater number of traders, and finding it difficult to get redress. The lack of resources locally—and we have already seen this morning that there is rightly concern that those resources will be stretched even further—means that Trading Standards, under the guise of efficiency, tends to focus its resources primarily on those conducting illegal trading.
We fear that some broader consumer protection measures may be at risk, such as those on unfair contracts or traders who are not fit purpose and who may confuse rather than clarify consumers’ rights. That is why we propose that one of the consumer rights that should be in the Bill is help for consumers to deal with rogue traders at local level. We all know of situations such as that of a rogue second-hand car salesman about whom we have seen a number of complaints. I have an example in my local community of a builder who clearly does not offer services of a satisfactory standard. Residents used old and new media to warn each other about him, but he continued to operate and tried a practice that many of us—he declared himself bankrupt and then set up a new business, which continued to have the same problems. I have seen people in other parts of the country face exactly the same sort of issue.
We recognise that in these difficult, austere times, the ambition that Trading Standards could primarily take on such individuals may not always be the reality. We propose in the amendment a suggestion for how that gap could be bridged and how we could bring together consumers who have experienced problems with the same trader locally, to enable them to decide whether they wished to take up, collectively, some of the forms of redress in the Bill. The Minister has talked at length about the common-law remedies available to members of the public when they experience consumer detriment. We all know that the cost of legal action can be prohibitively expensive, but we also understand that if people can share that burden and bring a collective case, that in itself can strengthen both their resolve and their willingness to act, because there is someone to share the cost and the potential risk that comes with it.
We therefore believe that there needs to be a framework to enable local Trading Standards to disclose complaints about a trader in the local community to others complaining about the same trader, if they have had the consent to do so. We have a number of systems of disclosure in our local communities already, such as for domestic violence, which protects community safety and enables a proactive approach to the women—it is primarily women—and some men who are at risk. There are models for how that can be done, and we think that it would be worth exploring whether there is a role for Trading Standards, not necessarily in having to take forward every individual case, but in bringing together complainants. We will turn later in the Bill to the issue of private actions, under clause 80, which is primarily intended to be used at a national level. The amendment is about trying to understand how we might be able to help people at a local level.
I am sure, as I said, that many of us have dealt with cases in our constituencies in which a number of people have complained about someone but have been hampered by the inability to share information about the complaints. In such cases, people clearly have an interest in working together. I know of a case of one gentlemen who was going around looking for the signs for a particular builder so that he could knock on the doors of the people who were using that builder and advise them. I fear that it may be the builder the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport had, but I certainly hope not. I am delighted to hear that his building works went so well and have been completed to a satisfactory standard, but what if they had not been?

Oliver Colvile: The hon. Lady may like to know that they have done an incredibly good job.

Stella Creasy: That is very good to hear. We have “rate my trader” websites and a number of informal mechanisms for hearing about good traders. The amendment would create a framework for bringing together consumers who have real concerns about a trader so that they could take action together. If in a year’s time what the hon. Gentleman thought had been fantastic work was leaking because the roof had not been laid properly, he could work with fellow consumers to bring a case.
Such a provision seems to be a way to bridge the gap. Although no one wants to see an American-style litigation culture in the UK, we want to give consumers a stronger ability to exercise their rights. If they have a right under common law to seek redress against an individual, they could do so collectively. If the trader was consistently behaving in such a fashion, it would strengthen their case. It could provide a format for providing information to ombudsmen and regulators. If a number of consumers were clubbing together to complain about a particular person or a particular trader, they could be flagged up as higher-risk.
We recognise that the disclosure system would need some safeguards against vexatious complainants. I am sure we have all dealt with constituents who have complained about a trader when it has not been merited. We would also want to prevent traders from using the system in an anti-competitive way to complain about their competitors. We therefore think that Trading Standards could act as that filter. Indeed, Citizens Advice is already piloting a scheme like that to try to bring together consumers so they can seek private redress. That is a very welcome development. We think it would have been appropriate to put provisions in the Bill to give consumers the right to act in that way and a mechanism to facilitate it.
The amendment simply seeks a report into how such a system could be put into place. It would not commit the Government to anything but is intended to explore how we might learn from that best practice from Citizens Advice and how we might link with Trading Standards to provide a disclosure mechanism in a way that would provide protection from litigation, because it would be without disclosure. How does the Minister see the potential for such localised action—micro private action, to coin a phrase—to help consumers exercise their rights where individually legal redress would be prohibitive? Someone who has just spent their life savings of £15,000 having their loft converted probably does not have the money to chase the trader if the work has not been satisfactory. Finding a way to share the burden with others who have been affected by that trader seems a fair and reasonable thing to do. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was intended, which is a suggestion for a policy that could be developed further. Does she see any merit in bringing consumers together? If not, can she tell us why she does not feel we have a role to play in helping people seek individual redress in that way?

Jennifer Willott: The amendment would require the Government to produce a report on the benefits of sharing the information in question. Under the Enterprise Act 2002 there is already a requirement on enforcers such as Trading Standards to inform the Office of Fair Trading of any intended proceedings and to give notice of criminal convictions and civil proceedings. There is also a requirement on enforcers to notify the OFT of the outcome of any such proceedings. The Government intend that the CMA will take over that role from the OFT.
The outcomes of criminal prosecutions and civil proceedings are already a matter of public record. That information is already publicly available. In addition, mechanisms are already in place that balance the right to share information with the need to protect data. As we have discussed earlier, they are found in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998, which are overseen by the Information Commissioner, so there is already legislation that covers the matter.
Our reforms to the consumer enforcement landscape provide a better service for consumers through a more coherent approach to trading standards enforcement and by combining the power of the trading standards community to enable it to act in the wider interest. A number of the changes will pull together the way that Trading Standards operates and provide more co-ordination through the National Trading Standards Board and Trading Standards Scotland. Trading standards practitioners will pool intelligence in a way similar to the one that the hon. Lady highlighted. They will be better able to identify potential detriment and deploy resources to prioritise cases that have the greatest impact. So there is already sharing of intelligence across enforcement agencies, with cases prioritised up to national level, to pull that information together. The National Trading Standards Board and Trading Standards Scotland are required to produce quarterly and annual reports to BIS outlining their work in tackling consumer detriment, particularly in relation to rogue traders. That information is pulled together across the UK and is then reported.
The issue of collective redress and ensuring that action can be taken when a number of consumers are affected by the same trader comes under the enhanced consumer measures part of the Bill, which we shall come on to shortly. The enhanced consumer measures will provide more flexible tools for enforcers to tackle breaches of consumer law. A key element of those measures is giving consumers more information to enable them to make better purchasing decisions.
The measures could be used to require a business to advertise its breach of the law and what it is doing to put the situation right. That could be by putting information on their website or a notice in the press or on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet raised that point during the evidence sessions at the beginning of the Committee process. Requiring that of businesses will mean that public information is available in the way that the hon. Member for Walthamstow highlighted. It will also incentivise business compliance and encourage consumers to switch to more compliant businesses if they are able to see more easily which businesses have been in breach of the law in the past.

Laura Sandys: Do we recognise, through introducing this legislation, and through the attitude of BIS, that Trading Standards has not necessarily used all its tools to publicise the misdemeanours of companies that have contravened trading standards, and that we should encourage it to use some of the more public platforms?

Jennifer Willott: I certainly think that an important part of the enhanced consumer measures is that they allow Trading Standards to better identify the most appropriate way to tackle breaches. In many cases it may well be about redress for consumers. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Walthamstow have highlighted the need for consumers to have information about a particular builder or rogue trader and to know that that person has breached the law before. That will enable them to change their behaviour and decide who they are going to go with to build their extension, or whatever it may be. Being able to access that information and know whether a trader has been caught out by Trading Standards in the past is a very important part of the information that consumers need when making good decisions about who they are going to purchase goods or services from. That is something that members of both sides of the House agree on.
I do not believe that all complaints should be made public, because they may not all be justified or proven. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow highlighted, there may be instances of frivolous complaints to try to cause problems for competitors and so on, but where there is a problem or a breach of the law, enforcers already have the power through the Bill to publicise it. I agree with her that it is important that those powers are used.
As for whether we should consider introducing a collective redress for breaches of consumer law, which was the hon. Lady’s other point, I believe that the enhanced consumer measures offer a more flexible, balanced and proportionate approach. As well as getting redress, which we have identified as being as much as £12 million per year, it will lead to fewer businesses reoffending and consumers will have more information on businesses that breach the law, which is a critical part of making this work. The Opposition’s policy report on that highlighted the risks of introducing collective redress for breaches of consumer law, including the fact that consumers sometimes receive little or no benefit and are sometimes bound with a low settlement, and that lawyers’ fees mean that they can benefit as much as consumers.
A more proportionate way to take action is to introduce enhanced consumer measures, under which businesses may have to offer redress, if that is the most appropriate step forward. However, Trading Standards can do other things with those businesses as well, such as requiring public information, requiring them to join up to an ombudsman service, if appropriate, and improving their complaints procedures, and so on. That is a much more flexible way to tackle breaches of the law and provides a more appropriate measure to ensure redress for consumers and improvements to services and goods.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that information sharing is already in place through various mechanisms and that, in terms of collective redress, the enhanced consumer measures are a better way to do a similar thing without the potential disadvantages of a collective redress system. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that no additional reporting requirements are required, because the information is already being made available

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for her response. I feel that she has not quite understood the point that we are trying to make and I take responsibility if that is so. It is not about whether information is available, notifying people of criminal or civil proceedings taken by Trading Standards, but about the first, basic complaint that someone might make when they are concerned about the quality of a builder, giving Trading Standards the ability to say, “Well, actually, somebody else has come to us about this builder as well. They have given consent for their details to be shared with anybody else who might have concerns about them, so that you, individually, can decide whether you want to work together in taking action against this trader.” That process of information disclosure is different from Trading Standards itself taking civil or criminal proceedings against somebody and that being reported to the Office of Fair Trading.
Whether consumers in a local area would seek FOI information from the Office of Fair Trading, or contact it to ask whether Joe Bloggs, builder in East Lothian had a number of complaints against him—that is what we are trying to get at—is a separate point. Most consumer detriment takes place at a micro level. We sought to encourage the Government to explore how that information could be made public.
I should like to pick the Minister up on the Enterprise Act, because I know first hand, bitterly, that there is no capacity for revealing organisations against which action is being taken. The Government will remember, 18 months ago, the OFT’s trumpeting loudly that it was taking action against the top 50 payday lenders. However, it could not tell us who they were because the Enterprise Act precluded disclosure of information about any ongoing investigation, and that investigation was perpetually ongoing. Indeed, some payday lenders that we knew must be covered claimed not to be, so there was confusion for consumers.
The Enterprise Act does not, perhaps, allow the transmission of information in the way that the Minister suggests. Either way, we were not seeking to expand collective redress locally; we were seeking a way to help consumers exercise their rights to individual redress under the current law and to find a way to work with others to do so.
I hope that the Minister will investigate this matter further, because there is a case for trying to find ways to help those people persistently affected by rogue traders, whether the second-hand car salesman or the rogue shop that is persistently selling goods that may not necessarily cause a breach and lead to criminal proceedings but is a source of concern. Groups of consumers locally could club together. Finding a way to facilitate that is separate from determining whether Trading Standards would take the issue up themselves.
I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because we have made the point that an enforcement gap is developing. I hope that the Minister, in taking forward the legislation, perhaps even in the House of Lords, will return to the idea of being able to disclose, in a trusted way, who rogue traders are locally, not just through a rate-my-trader site. If people think that they have been sold a loft conversion that is not fit for purpose, other people may have been sold such a loft conversion, and the person having to knock on doors to find other people who might be victims of the same rogue trader needs support from Trading Standards. That is the point we are trying to make in the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister has misunderstood that we are talking about very local disclosure, as opposed to situations where enhanced consumer measures or the OFT’s successor, the CMA, might be brought in. Having made the point that there is an enforcement gap locally as a result of this measure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 81,in schedule 5, page87,line36, at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
Amendment 82,in schedule 5, page87,line42, after ‘(a)’, insert ‘, (aa)’.
Amendment 83,in schedule 5, page88,line7, at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
Amendment 84,in schedule 5, page88,line9, after ‘(a)’, insert ‘ or (aa)’.
Amendment 85,in schedule 5, page88,line17, at end insert—
‘(aa) an offence under legislation under which legislation within paragraph (a) is made,’.
Amendment 86,in schedule 5, page88,line19, after ‘(a)’, insert ‘ or (aa)’.—(Jenny Willott.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 76 also applies to these amendments.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6  - Investigatory powers: consequential amendments

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 87, schedule 6, page92,line17, at end insert—
44A In section 44(4) (service of documents)—
(a) omit “28(2) or”, and
(b) omit “purchased or” in each place.’.

This amendment makes a consequential amendment to section 44(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which is necessary following the repeal of section 28 of that Act by the Bill.
We are about to have yet another edge-of-seat debate. Amendment 87 will amend section 44(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which deals with the service of documents. I am sure hon. Members are already gripped. The amendment is necessary following the repeal of section 28 of the 1987 Act, which covers test purchasing by enforcers. The amendment is minor and is necessary to deal with the technical issue in the current drafting. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that that is all I intend to say on the matter.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 88,schedule 6, page95,line5, leave out ‘(h),’.

The amendment modifies the amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 following the proposal to retain specific powers within section 29(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and regulation 22(4) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Those specific powers will now be carved out of the repeals in the 2001 Act.

Sandra Osborne: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 89 to 96.

Jennifer Willott: Amendments 88 to 96 will introduce minor additional changes in schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to reflect the fact that certain specific powers are being retained. Amendment 96 makes the same provisions as amendment 88, but it further makes amendments to remedy pre-existing errors in paragraphs 4A and 9A of schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Again, the amendments are minor in nature and are necessary to deal with technical issues in the current drafting.

Amendment 88 agreed to.

Amendments made: 89,in schedule 6, page95,line5, leave out ‘(o),’.
Amendment 90, in schedule 6, page95,line5, at end insert—
(aa) in paragraph (h) for “29” substitute “29(4)”,
(ab) in paragraph (o) for “22” substitute “22(4)”,’.
Amendment 91,in schedule 6, page95,line34, leave out paragraph (g).
Amendment 92,in schedule 6, page95,line36, leave out ‘first and second paragraphs’ and insert ‘first paragraph’.
Amendment 93,in schedule 6, page95,line40, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 45 for “29(4), (5) and (6)” substitute “29(4)”.
(2B) In the second paragraph 73G for “22(4) to (6)” substitute “22(4)”.’.
Amendment 94,in schedule 6, page96,line2, leave out ‘3, 4A,’.
Amendment 95,in schedule 6, page96,line2, leave out ‘8, 9A,’.

The explanatory statement for amendment 88 also applies to these amendments.
Amendment 96,in schedule 6, page96,line2, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 3 for “29” in each place substitute “29(4)”.
(2B) In paragraph 4A—
(a) for “23” substitute “22(4)”, and
(b) for “22” substitute “22(4)”.
(2C) In paragraph 8 for “29” in each place substitute “29(4)”.
(2D) In paragraph 9A—
(a) for the first “22” substitute “22(4)”, and
(b) for “products under regulations 22 of those Regulations.” substitute “those items, as it applies to the seizure and detention of products under regulation 22(4) of those Regulations.”’.—(Jenny Willott.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 88 also applies to this amendment. This amendment also makes changes to remedy pre-existing errors in paragraphs 4A and 9A of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 97,in schedule 6, page97,line11, at end insert—

‘Fireworks Act 2003 (c. 22)
79A (1) Section 12 of the Fireworks Act 2003 (enforcement) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) omit paragraph (a), and
(b) in paragraph (b), for “29(1) to (5), (6)(a) and (7)” substitute “29(4) and (7)”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) For the investigatory powers available to a local weights and measures authority for the purposes of the duty to enforce imposed by virtue of subsection (1) (in addition to the powers in Part 4 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987), see Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2014.”’.

This amendment introduces consequential amendments to the Fireworks Act 2003 so as to remove references within the 2003 Act to those parts of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which are to be repealed and instead insert a reference to the generic set of investigatory powers contained within the Bill.
I am sure you are delighted that my comments are getting briefer and briefer, Mrs Osborne. Amendment 97 is a technical amendment to schedule 6. It introduces consequential amendments to the Fireworks Act 2003, to remove references in the 2003 Act to those parts of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that are to be repealed. A reference to the generic set of investigatory powers in the Bill will be inserted instead.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79  - Enterprise Act 2002: enhanced consumer measures and other enforcement

Stella Creasy: I beg to move amendment 105, in clause79,page42,line14,at end insert—
‘(3) For the purposes of the enhanced consumer measures set out in Schedule 7 the Secretary of State shall publish a review of the powers of Trading Standards Officers to consider—
(a) the number of enforcement actions by Trading Standards taken under the enhanced consumer protections set out in this Act;
(b) any additional operational costs to Trading Standards Services associated with the new powers and procedures under sections 77 and 79 of this Act; and
(c) the establishment of a statutory minimum standard for all officers carrying out Trading Standards functions in any local authority and the role of a competent body to set, test against, apply and monitor those standards.’.
Clause 79 will introduce the enhanced consumer measures talked about so much. Enhancement is an apposite term. According to the Government, the clause will give more flexibility to the public enforcers who deal with breaches in consumer law. We have previously debated whether there would be a way to deal with the dodgy builder who preys on the local community, and the Minister has suggested that the enhanced consumer measures might be able to deal with that, with more flexibility for enforcers to take on such individuals.
The clause will bring into play schedule 7, which is about the enhanced powers. It does not specify what the enhanced powers are, because the Government believe that that will give the flexibility. It also opens the door to the possibility of private bodies having the power to exercise enhanced consumer measures and to take action. That is welcome, because organisations such as Which? and Citizens Advice might be able to exercise such powers.
We have, however, questions that we want to ask. We are a little concerned, especially with some of the Government amendments, that loopholes could develop, and it would be useful to get the Government’s perspective on that. We have identified a gap this morning in how local Trading Standards will be able to use the enhanced powers. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that, under the current system and current resourcing, local Trading Standards will be able to take on every rogue builder or dodgy trader in our local communities. I therefore think that private enforcers might have a role to play. I note that a Government amendment will require private enforcers to act in a particular manner.
We are concerned that what I might call the self-regulation or intervention test will come into play. Having enhanced consumer powers and more flexibility is all well and good, but, unless we can back them up with a serious intervention, traders might simply feel that they do not have to comply. Will all enforcers always be able to back up with legal action any threat of intervention and the use of enhanced consumer measures, which, after all, are designed to avoid legal action?
As I have often explained to my partner, it is always self-regulation or intervention, but he has to understand that intervention is a realistic threat, otherwise self-regulation does not seem a conducive option. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough looks concerned. We all want to avoid legal challenge, but we recognise that that role is needed. I think that that is why Which? expressed the concern:
“We are concerned that the threat of court action is not always sufficient to encourage traders to engage meaningfully in negotiations with enforcers over remedies... This risk is likely to be especially acute as enforcement budgets are streamlined.”
It is therefore keen to see
“enforcement mechanisms...extended. This could include either the ability for enforcers to impose monetary penalties or a simplified and streamlined court process.”
Put simply, if we are to have enhanced consumer measures, how do we know that they will really have teeth? How do we know that Trading Standards will be able to engage traders in a meaningful conversation? The threat of court action could become the thing that actually prevents court action, because traders will engage with the enhanced consumer measures. Problems will be advertised and particular conduct will stop. That is why we have suggested that it would be helpful to have a report.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government will review the powers in three to five years. We think that, because enhanced consumer measures are quite a new thing, it would be worth reviewing in a shorter time frame. We need to be confident that the powers are being used in the pre-emptive way in which we think they are intended. It is also important that the Government are clearer about why they have given only the potential for private enforcement action and for private bodies to have the powers to act in the consumer’s interest.
If there is a case for such measures, the Government should get on and do it, and we could have proper scrutiny. I am sure that the Minister will say that the measures will be introduced in a statutory instrument—we all know how much fun SIs are—but if we are to give private organisations such as Which? the power to act, it is right to see that within the context of the Bill. The fact that the power is there only in principle is a concern to us. We want to make sure that if we are going to do this—we think there is a strong case for doing it—we look at it in the context of the Bill.
We are also concerned that, if private enforcers are brought in, they may be asked to pick up the slack generated by gaps in Trading Standards. Resources for local Trading Standards are increasingly stretched, which the Minister has acknowledged to be a problem, and we could be looking to Citizens Advice or Which? to act as the enforcement agency by default.
Of course, that creates some very real challenges for us in being sure that these services will match up. No one is suggesting that Which? and Citizens Advice do not act in the consumer interest but they may not always act in the public interest, which after all is what we ask public agencies to do. This is a possible tension, which we think needs resolving. I suspect that the Minister will point to Government amendment 112 and suggest that that is how they will resolve it, but that also creates the impression that we will look to these private organisations to fill the gaps in public provision. We want clarification on this issue and that is why we have tabled the amendment. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Jennifer Willott: The amendment seeks to introduce a requirement on the Secretary of State to review the use of the enhanced consumer measures, including how often they have been used and the cost to Trading Standards. In addition, the review would include the costs to Trading Standards of the changes we are making to its powers in schedule 5, whether a statutory minimum standard for all trading standards should be introduced and if so whether a body should be established to do that. The amendment does not say when the review should take place. As the hon. Lady highlighted, we have of course already committed to a post-implementation review of both the enhanced consumer measures and the changes the Bill makes to Trading Standards’ powers. Our impact assessments for both state that the policies will be reviewed three to five years after the measure comes into force. It is important to give the policies enough time to bed in and start operating effectively before we review them.
In addition, when we introduced the power to extend the enhanced consumer measures to private enforcers, the Government said that we want to see how the measures bed in and what the experience is of the public enforcers using them, before deciding whether their use should be extended to private enforcers. The hon. Lady asked about this when we talked about extending the use of the measures to Which?. At the moment they would only be extended to Which?, because there is a designation of private enforcers, and Which? is the only organisation currently designated as such.
The measures we are introducing in the Bill are innovative and far-reaching, and we are providing enforcers with a great deal of flexibility in order to get the best outcomes for consumers. We think it appropriate that at the beginning, their use be limited to public enforcers only. Before the power is exercised to extend them to private enforcers, we want to see how they bed in and look at the experience of the public enforcers using them. We can then consider whether it is appropriate to exercise the power. This will enable us to have more information on the impact of the measures, including the potential impact of extending their use, and then to make a clear decision on when and how they should be extended.
Clearly, when deciding whether or not to extend the use of these measures, a key, fundamental consideration will be how often they have been used and the cost to Trading Standards of using them. We accept that this is quite a change to the way public enforcers operate at the moment, and we accept that it will not come into regular use overnight and will take a while to get used to. As we have mentioned, the implementation group is looking at the guidance and at what will be required to assist Trading Standards. The Trading Standards Institute will also consider the training which trading standards officers will need to operate these new powers.
Turning to the proposal in the amendment to establish statutory minimum standards for trading standards officers, I have already mentioned that an updated and simplified statutory regulators’ code is expected to come into force in April 2014 and replace the current Regulators’ Compliance Code. Regulators, including local authority trading standards, must have regard to this statutory code. The code requires regulators within scope to ensure their officers have the necessary knowledge and skills to support those they regulate.
The Government will conduct a light-touch monitoring exercise approximately six months after the implementation of the code, to see how regulators have been adapting to the code’s principles. That is quite a short timeframe before we look at this. In addition, the Better Regulation Delivery Office will continue to assist all the relevant bodies to implement the provisions of the code. At a local level, local authorities are best placed to determine their officers’ competency because they have a better understanding of local priorities and are able to take into account new models of delivery and collaborative approaches with other businesses and councils. The Local Government Association supports that view.
The hon. Lady asked whether the enforcement mechanisms should be extended to enable enforcers to impose financial penalties. We do not think enforcers should be able to impose monetary penalties. If they were able to, businesses that dispute a penalty would have to take the case to court to prove their innocence. In disputed cases, it should be for the enforcer to bring the case to court, rather than for businesses to appeal against the penalty. Under the redress measures, an enforcer can seek an undertaking from a business to pay their consumers’ redress, but, importantly, if the business disputes that that redress is warranted, the enforcer will have to prove its case in court. That is an important element.
The hon. Lady expressed concerns about the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that businesses comply with the measures. If a business does not comply with a court order or an undertaking, individual traders, directors or officers of the company who have wilfully failed to ensure compliance can be committed for contempt of court, which is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. There are significant penalties for non-compliance. In addition, individual traders, directors or officers of companies and the company itself can have property sequestered or be given an unlimited fine. Therefore, penalties are available for ensuring that companies comply with the measures.
The question was raised whether Trading Standards will have the resources to use the new powers effectively. A key part of the change is that Trading Standards will have a route through the civil courts, rather than the criminal courts. Civil actions are cheaper than criminal prosecutions, so it will be easier for Trading Standards to use its powers. We feel that the change will save Trading Standards some money each year. As I said, the Trading Standards Institute is looking at its training needs, and it is important to take that into account.
In the consultation, BIS surveyed Trading Standards on this element of the Bill. We found that if these measures had been available, as many as 250 cases could have been dealt with in the civil, rather than criminal, courts in 2011. In 2011-12, there were 1,972 formal proceedings by Trading Standards for breaches of consumer law. Of those, the overwhelming majority were prosecuted under criminal law, and only a small number under civil proceedings. It will be cheaper and easier for Trading Standards to prosecute cases under civil law, and it will have back-up powers to ensure that businesses comply with the agreements. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions. I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Stella Creasy: It was welcome to hear the Minister say that there will be a review of how the powers operate. We will discuss this matter further when we debate amendment 112, but Opposition Members are concerned that the way the system is being set up could lead to a presumption that private enforcement agents—in particular, Which?—will pick up the issues that Trading Standards cannot. I appreciate that the Minister has said that there will be a review in three to five years without moving forward the powers of private bodies. The Opposition want to see that review fit in with legislation such as the Bill. There needs to be clarity about what added value there would be from private bodies having these powers alongside Trading Standards. The Minister is presuming that Trading Standards will be able to undertake the role that she wants them to undertake.
Earlier, the Minister said that the Government do not have a view about whether Trading Standards should become a chartered profession. Minimum standards are part of the process of standardisation and will ensure the high quality of Trading Standards across the country. Will the Minister clarify whether, if the Trading Standards Institute came forward with such a proposal, the Government would support and, indeed, encourage it? That is a different point from whether they think it should write the guidance itself.

Jennifer Willott: As far as I am aware, the Trading Standards Institute has not raised that with the Government yet.

Stella Creasy: Given that the Government have assured us that such a review will take place and cover those issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7  - Enterprise Act 2002: enhanced consumer measures and other enforcement

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 111,in schedule 7, page102,line1, leave out ‘a private designated’ and insert ‘an’.

This amendment corrects an error in new 219C(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Act does not use the term “private designated enforcer” and it is sufficient in the context to refer to “an enforcer”.
The amendment is a technical amendment. It does not change the practical intention of the Bill.
“Private designated enforcer” is not a term used in the Enterprise Act 2002, so the term is being replaced with “an enforcer”. That is sufficient in the context, because new section 219C(1) will establish that the entire section only applies to designated enforcers that are not a public body, meaning private designated enforcers.

Amendment 111 agreed to.

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment 112,in schedule 7, page102,line31, at end insert—
‘(8A) Subsection (8B) applies if—
(a) an enforcer exercises a function in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) or (2),
(b) that function is a relevant function for the purposes of Part 2 (co-ordination of regulatory enforcement) of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, and
(c) a primary authority (within the meaning of that Part) has given advice or guidance under section 27(1) of that Act—
(i) to that person in relation to that function, or
(ii) to other local authorities (within the meaning of that Part) with that function as to how they should exercise it in relation to that person.
(8B) The enforcer must, in exercising the function in relation to that person, act consistently with that advice or guidance.’.

This amendment introduces a duty on private designated enforcers to act consistently with advice or guidance given by a primary authority when seeking an enforcement order or undertaking that includes enhanced consumer measures.
The amendment will impose an additional safeguard on the use of enhanced consumer measures by private designated enforcers. Those measures will, as we have already discussed, give enforcers of consumer law greater flexibility when dealing with a breach of the law.
The measures will allow public enforcers to seek a range of innovative and positive measures aimed at achieving one or more of three outcomes: redress for consumers who have suffered loss; increasing business compliance with the law; and giving consumers more choice. Measures must be just, reasonable and proportionate, and we want the measures to be used whenever appropriate.
We have therefore included a power in the Bill, as has been discussed, to enable the Government to extend the use of the measures to private enforcers. Amendment 112 will ensure that private designated enforcers who seek an enforcement order or undertaking with enhanced consumer measures will have to act consistently with advice or guidance issued under the primary authority scheme. Such a scheme will allow businesses to have confidence in the advice they have been given. That means they are more likely to invest in their compliance procedures, safe in the knowledge that they will not have to deal with different interpretations of the law or different approaches to enforcing it.
The amendment will ensure that enforcement action is consistent and joined up, regardless of whether the enforcement body is a local authority or a private enforcer. The requirement covers only those enforcement orders or undertakings that seek to include enhanced consumer measures. That approach not only gives legitimate businesses the space to grow, but ensures that those who flout the law are dealt with consistently.

Stella Creasy: The amendment is quite interesting, and we want to ask a number of questions. It is clear that the Government intend to provide private enforcement bodies with powers of enhanced consumer measures. The Minister said in a previous debate that that will not be introduced for three to five years, because they will first conduct a review of Trading Standards, but they are clearly looking at how the Bill can enable that.
The amendment, which will require private enforcers to act in accordance with the guidance provided by primary authorities, is worthy of further scrutiny, because it raises a number of questions. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified what she sees as a primary authority. Would the National Trading Standards Board be able to direct Which?—the private enforcer that we are looking at the moment—to take a case? Would Which? be able to refuse to take the direction because it is an independent organisation after all? Private enforcers are independent of Government direction, so what would happen if they were unable to exercise their judgment under the Bill to use these enhanced consumer measures? Would they have those powers removed? I ask that because there does not seem to be provision in the Bill for them to be removed. Alternatively, would the private enforcer be sanctioned?
It would be very helpful if the Minister set out how she sees this particular amendment operating, and what would happen if there was a disagreement with the guidance. For example, what would happen if Which? believed that the guidance was not strong enough, because it felt that there was a consumer interest in taking action? What would be its right to use the powers that the Bill gives it? Would it be restricted in speaking out? Would it face having powers removed if it challenged the way that the guidance had been written and it felt that the enhanced consumer measures should be applied to a particular example of trading, but it was not given that opportunity?
Could we see a situation in which private enforcers end up plugging the gaps in public enforcement agencies? Indeed, they might be required to do so. Could they be asked to do so, given the guidance? It would be helpful if the Minister clarified how she sees that relationship working on a day-to-day basis, because a number of us are concerned that either the burden or the restriction on Which? could be excessive, and neither of those situations would be in anybody’s interests. Consequently, I am interested to hear what she has to say on that point.

Jennifer Willott: The Government have said that we need to consult before this power would be extended. It is not something that we consulted on when we did the draft Bill. It was raised by, among others, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, when it did the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee made a recommendation that this power should be introduced.
There is potential for the power to be quite important for Which? and anyone else who may be designated in the future as a private enforcer. However, the hon. Lady has asked some important questions about it, and it is clear that the issues she raises need to be bottomed out before the power could be extended. That is one of the reasons why the Government have said that it is important to consult carefully all the different bodies that would be involved before the power is extended to private enforcers.
The hon. Lady also asked what would happen if a private enforcer disagreed with the advice issued by the primary authority and wished to take enforcement action anyway. To clarify matters for members of the Committee, big companies have a primary authority that is designated to them and with which they have their key relationship. That primary authority acts on behalf of Trading Standards to ensure that there is a consistent relationship and a consistent message, and so that if the company has outlets across the UK, it does not have to deal with individual Trading Standards officers. The primary authority can organise much more effective co-ordination across the country. Primary authorities can also issue advice, which all other authorities across the country must respect, and they can then co-ordinate enforcement and inspection activity on behalf of Trading Standards across the country. That is how that relationship works, and why it is quite important that it is set out in the Bill.
If a private enforcer disagrees with a primary authority’s advice and wishes to go ahead with enforcement action anyway, the Better Regulation Delivery Office recommends that they contact the primary authority as soon as possible to discuss the situation. Most issues can be resolved informally in that way, and the primary authority may well agree with the private enforcer’s arguments regarding enforcement action being justified in the circumstances, so it may well be that there is a way to negotiate an agreement with the primary authority. In those cases, the primary authority can then help the business and the private enforcer to reach a satisfactory resolution.
On occasions when a disagreement between a primary authority and a private enforcer occurs, the BRDO will work with the two parties to try to resolve the matter. However, a lot of the issues that the hon. Lady raised will need to be considered in any consultation that is carried out prior to the power being extended, to ensure that we have looked at all the different issues around the relationship between the primary authority and the private enforcer so that it is well thought through and well planned, and to make it as effective as possible if and when the power is extended.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for her answer. She rightly says that the Government have not yet consulted on how private enforcement agencies could take up the powers, but the amendment seems to pre-empt that. She says that the Better Regulation Delivery Office will be able to resolve any dispute between a private enforcer and a primary authority, but what if it cannot?
The amendment pre-empts any resolution and states that the primary authority will always win out. If that is the Government’s intention, surely they should simply state that so that it defines the consultation. Any private enforcer agency taking on such powers will probably want to know that, ultimately, it will be acting as an arm of the state rather than as an independent body using enhanced consumer measures. I am sure that there are cases for both options, but the amendment seems to pre-empt the consultation that the Minister says must take place.
Let me give an example of where conflict might arise so that the Committee can understand our concern that the Minister is jumping the gun. Owing to my history with payday lenders, I know that a number of consumer organisations were expressing concerns about how payday loans companies were operating some time ago. The primary authority at the time, the Office of Fair Trading, was not concerned—it took a while for it to catch up. Under the enhanced consumer measures, if a private enforcer agency had identified companies acting like the one putting out leaflets in my local community, but the primary authority said that it could not take action—as it did when I asked whether it was acceptable that the Wonga adverts did not show an interest rate—we would be hampered.
The Minister will remember our discussion last Thursday of the growing concern about how legal advice is sold by insurance companies. If the Financial Conduct Authority did not feel that there was cause for concern, would Which? be hampered in challenging that kind of behaviour?

Jennifer Willott: Let me clarify that for the hon. Lady. Neither the OFT nor the FCA are primary authorities. The primary authority is a local authority that has a relationship with a company and acts as the main Trading Standards link to that company. The examples that the hon. Lady raised are not relevant to the amendment.

Stella Creasy: But if a private enforcement agency sought to take action against a national company because of how it was operating in a local area, the enforcement agency would have a relationship with the primary authority. Would it not be regulated by the FCA? Who would set the standards for an enforcement agency’s behaviour? If we take the example of legal advice sold through insurance companies, will the Minister clarify who such companies will be accountable to if a private designated enforcer decided that it wanted to use enhanced consumer measures?
The Minister made great play of the requirement suggested by the hon. Member for South Thanet that information be provided on websites. If Which? wanted insurance companies that were advertising legal advice to set out the limitations of such advice on their websites, would it be able to make them do so under enhanced consumer measures? It seems that that would not be a big enough case to take to the CMA, but it might be something for which enhanced consumer measures could be used.

Jennifer Willott: A lot of the issues the hon. Lady raises show exactly why we must consult before we introduce the power. Nevertheless, I want to clarify the fact that the amendment relates specifically to primary authorities. It therefore concerns local authorities, so the issues that the hon. Lady raises do not relate to the amendment.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for that clarification, but will she also clarify whether the enforcers listed in clause 77 come into play on this issue? They would be the authorities that set out guidance about what action and enforcement can be taken.
The Minister has not quite answered the question about insurance companies. How would a private agency take action against insurance companies for how they were advertising legal advice? That is the sort of action against which enhanced consumer measures might be sought.
I take the Minister’s point that such issues will be discussed during the consultation, but we are asking questions about the amendment to make the point that she is pre-empting that consultation. If private enforcement agencies are going to be able to take action, surely a framework that allows them consistency and independence of thought on such matters would be better. Will the Minister clarify whether she sees any of the organisations listed in clause 77 as primary authorities?

Jennifer Willott: I will make it very clear: enforcers are laid out in the Bill, but a primary authority is not the same as an enforcement agency. I tried to clarify in my previous comments the fact that the primary authority is a local authority that has a lead relationship with a business, usually based in its area, that has UK-wide coverage. For example, a furniture manufacturing company may have outlets across the UK. Very often, the primary authority will be the local authority—

Sandra Osborne: Order.

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.